Skip Navigation
 

Don’t Meddle With Stamp Duty!

Cliff D'Arcy
By Cliff D'Arcy | 6 August 2008

On Tuesday morning, during an interview for BBC Radio 4’s Today programme, Chancellor Alistair Darling hinted that he may fiddle with Stamp Duty Land Tax (commonly referred to as ‘stamp duty’). Stamp duty is a tax which is levied on buyers of property, but not sellers. It is payable within thirty days of completion, and is calculated as follows:

Purchase price

Stamp Duty

rate (%)

Up to £125,000

0

Over £125,000 to £250,000

1

Over £250,000 to £500,000

3

Over £500,000

4

The odd thing about stamp duty is that it is not a graduated (stepped) rate. In other words, when you move into the next threshold, you pay the higher tax rate on the entire purchase price, not the excess above this ceiling. For example, stamp duty of 1% on a property costing £249,999 is £2,499.99. However, for a property bought for £250,001, 3% tax comes to £7,500.03.

Stamp duty on various documents was introduced into the UK in 1694 by William and Mary, in order to pay for the war against France. In 1808, it was extended to property transactions, so this tax on homeowners has been in force for two centuries.

These are taxing times

Obviously, with house prices falling at the fastest rate on record, the Government is desperate to avoid a house-price crash akin to that which rocked the UK in the early Nineties. Hence, the Chancellor has indicated that he may temporarily suspend or defer stamp duty. (Of course, he was deliberately vague, as always happens with these carefully spun proposals.)

Last year, the Government collected £6.4 billion in stamp duty, an eightfold increase on the £800 million collected a decade earlier. However, as property transactions plunge, stamp duty’s contribution to the public purse is expected to halve in 2008. Hence, with sales falling off a cliff, the Government may collect under £3.2 billion in stamp duty this year.

With the nation’s finances already stretched to the limit, the Government will not abolish stamp duty across the board, as this would be too big a loss to swallow. At most, the Chancellor could temporarily suspend stamp duty on sales under £250,000. Even more likely, he could defer payment of stamp duty, allowing us to ‘buy now and pay later’. In other words, the Government would give homebuyers interest-free credit on their stamp duty bill.

Why this is a loopy idea

Although I’m all in favour of tax cuts, tinkering with stamp duty is a daft idea, for these reasons:

  • It will benefit only a few hundred thousand people, but any shortfall in tax revenue would have to be covered by all of us.
  • Thanks to high house prices, higher mortgage rates and steep arrangement fees, stamp duty is a minor expense, particularly on purchases under £250,000.
  • I vividly remember the Conservatives trying this trick back in December 1991. The Government waived stamp duty on purchases under £250,000 for a nine-month period. Alas, both house prices and sales fell in 1992, and the property market continued to slide until 1995.
  • With personal debt at an all-time high and disposable incomes falling, giving buyers a stamp-duty holiday would be a big mistake. History proves that taxes should be collected at the earliest possible opportunity, which is why employees have PAYE (Pay As You Earn), instead of a yearly income-tax bill. Thus, postponing payment of stamp duty will lead to defaults and bad debts.
  • By attempting to bribe potential homeowners so early in the property downturn, the Government could fall foul of the ‘Law of Unintended Consequences’. This news should cause sales to slump, as buyers wait on the sidelines for a break from stamp duty. Indeed, it could panic some buyers into shelving their plans altogether. This will increase the pace of house price falls – not help to avoid a house-price crash!
  • With the public finances at breaking point, the Government simply doesn’t have the financial firepower to tackle falling prices in a £5.8 trillion market (the total value of all 26 million residential properties in the UK). In fact, with the value of housing falling by more than £1.5 billion a day, the Government is almost powerless to intervene.

There is one easy way out...

The real problem for homebuyers is that, thanks to the credit crunch, mortgages are more expensive and harder to obtain. Furthermore, thanks to the loss of our savings habit, amassing a decent house deposit (say, 10%+) is a tall order.

In my view, the Government can do little but to ride out the political storm to come. However, we as individuals can act to improve our own personal finances. For example, the UK’s savings ratio -- which measures how much of our take-home pay we save -- is the lowest it’s been for 49 years. By saving harder, we can create a bigger cash cushion to ride out the hard times.

Finally, as a nation, we have to accept that, after a decade of easy credit, we now face the reality of tough debt. The simplest way to make housing more affordable is to allow prices to fall to a sensible level. This will benefit everyone who plans to reach for or ascend the property ladder. The only people who benefit from sky-high house prices are property investors and elderly homeowners who sell never to buy again.

Disclosure: In December 1992, Cliff bought a house for 28% off the asking price, which he sold in April 2005. As a tenant, he has been out of the market for three years and stands to benefit from falling house prices.

More: Find Best Buy mortgages and savings via the Fool | Don’t Waste Thousands On This Property Mistake | Bad News For Homeowners And Lenders

Comments

The opinions expressed here are those of the individual writers and are not representative of The Motley Fool.

At 15:38 on August 06 2008, Superskuller said:

After Darling's confused statements on Stamp Duty, does anyone really know what he intends to do with it?

Based on that uncertainty, anyone who is continuing with a property purchase needs their head examining.

Add to the that the couple of thousand pounds saved each month as prices fall and this is a dead market.

At 15:45 on August 06 2008, M4NKS said:

I think you've been busted Cliff, sorry Cassandra.

Send my regards to Rodney.

At 16:30 on August 06 2008, CunningCliff said:

Thanks, M4NKS. At least it's better than "Trigger"! ;0)

Cliff

At 17:03 on August 06 2008, Saveaholic said:

I completely agree with this article. The pressure from people like Kirsty Allsopp to remove stamp duty is misguided. Stamp duty didn't stop the housing market shooting up like a rocket over the last few years, so why should removing it now stop the inevitable crash?

The real problem is that we've let house price inflation and personal debt get too high thanks to lax lending practices, greed and naivety. We can't now stop the bubble bursting. We can only take things on the chin, and learn from this episode.

At 17:17 on August 06 2008, werdna78 said:

Swap it round amd make the seller pay the stamp not the buyer. The Mr Darling looses nothing, first time buyers don't have anything to pay.

Anyone moving up the ladder will pay less and the people selling out at the top can pay it out of the profits they have made in the last 10 years.

At 17:25 on August 06 2008, Ilovedoggies said:

"With the public finances at breaking point, the Government simply doesn’t have the financial firepower to tackle falling prices in a £5.8 trillion market (the total value of all 26 million residential properties in the UK). In fact, with the value of housing falling by more than £1.5 billion a day"

It would be a better idea if this £1.5 billion a day was used to get the public finances in a better shape and build up a fund for the unfunded public sector pensions.

The above comment to be taken tongue in cheek.

However, people who are in negative equity (soon to be 2 million) will have great difficulty in ascending the property ladder.
Why can't we demand that food, transport, fuel and energy prices fall? That would benefit far more people.

At 17:27 on August 06 2008, Ilovedoggies said:

oops - only meant to put Cliff's comments in italics

At 23:34 on August 06 2008, applesarehot said:

As Vendors, we're paying the stamp duty for the people BUYING our house. That's a windfall of more than £9,000 to go back into the pockets of our buyers - once the sale's gone through. Expensive for us? YES, but we felt in the current climate it was the only pragmatic thing to do. As it is, our buyers are STILL waiting for their new lenders to confirm their mortgage offer, to they can proceed with buying our house. 4 households are now waiting on that morgage offer to come through. It's been weeks coming. I just hope everyone can keep their nerve...

At 07:34 on August 07 2008, withampeter said:

Fidling with tax duty is going to be non-productive. This government, like all labour governments bofore it, is all about tax and spend, spend , spend. The only way back from this is to cut government spending. Almost any housewife could do that well - it starts with cutting the government waste. Start at the top and halve the excessive salaries paid to these non-productive leeches - lets change 'I feel your pain' into 'I experience your pain'.

At 07:44 on August 07 2008, netsrik said:

It is understandable that the government wants to control the rate at which house prices fall. What is less understandable is that all parties talk of the need to 'help people get onto the housing ladder'. They should realise that any financial input to this end simply has the effect of raising house prices by increasing demand and putting more money into the market. There has come to be a general expectation of rapid price rises and many people seem to regard their house as an investment. There is no good reason why this should be so. It would make more sense for house prices to remain steady in the long term; then people wouldn't be stretched by large mortgages, they'd have more money available for other things (like pensions!), they might even not have to work so hard! I'm not suggesting the government should reintroduce the old property tax (Schedule E was it called?) that was based on the rental value, and held prices down, but they should never take any measures that encourage house prices to rise faster than inflation.

At 08:20 on August 07 2008, TimeValue said:

Tax the sale, not the purchase. CGT should be applied to all property sales. It could be higher in National Parks and it should be 100% for foreigners. Right to buy should be repealed and the Eco towns should be Eco council houses. Social housing is necessary.
All rental housing should be subject to licensing, to obtain a licence the homes should be brought up to current building regulation in respect of Docs, B, L and P. That will give the construction industry something to do and get a grip on the neorachmans.

At 08:25 on August 07 2008, allule said:

Since there is no chance of stamp duty being abolished, it needs reforming either by werdna48's idea of being paid by seller, or by a fairer graduated system. However, the one thing which will not help anyone is dithering and rumours. Tax changes are usually made immediate and unpredicted, to avoid distorting the market, and this is surely particularly important in the housing market at the moment. Buyers wondering whether to wait for prices to fall do not need the extra imponderable of whether stamp duty is to be changed.

At 08:41 on August 07 2008, bojotools said:

This pathetic government is now so unsure of itself that every bit of legislation has to have a 'toe in the water' leak to the press. In the face of uncertainty in the money markets we need strong decisions and bold measures, I don't hold out any hope of a recovery with Brown and Darling looking after our interests.

At 09:20 on August 07 2008, Iniq said:

I agree, dithering and fiddling about with stamp duty is probably futile.

House prices go up? - panic
House prices go down? - panic
House prices fluctuate - get over it.

They only reason they are dropping sharply now is because iresponsible lending had led to a previous house price bubble.

A sensible government should ignore short-term issues, should concentrate on long-term issues and discourage irresponsible lending by introducing long-term legistlation to make it harder for lenders to re-posess. (But that's what I've been saying for the last 5 or 10 years ...)

At 09:29 on August 07 2008, marktheharp said:

I like the idea of getting the vendor to pay - and tax only properties in flood-prone areas, using the money to pay for flood relief. That way we penalise new-builds on unsuitable land and, more importantly, use the stamp duty for a useful purpose (what's it used for now, I wonder??!)

At 09:35 on August 07 2008, onlyroz said:

We need a sensible tiered system for stamp duty, to stop the distortion of the market at £250K (speaking as a person who bought a house at exactly £250K about 18 months ago). But it's shameful of the chancellor to drop hints about what might happen to stamp duty - the uncertainty is bound to have a negative impact on housing sales. Make a decision, man, and stick to it.

At 09:42 on August 07 2008, GrahamMiller0 said:

Good article Cliff. You raised points that I hadn't thought of before. However, I am still against stamp duty in principle. Why should house sales be singled out as a source of revenue for the government?

However, as removing it permanently isn't likely, at least make it a flat rate so that the threshold nonsense disappears.

At 09:54 on August 07 2008, andysuth said:

It's a fair enough statement, but I do think it needs making fairer: incremental rather than total taxing on amounts above a threshold.

I also think there should be no stamp duty on a "below Average cost" property.

Having NO stamp duty to pay on our house (in a particular area of Liverpool) when the purchase price was above 60K played a part in our decision to buy here.

It might work for keeping people moving to a particular region, but I don't think it's going to keep people moving houses until they know an end is coming to the "No Stamp Duty Period"

I also don't think people defaulting on later payments is a concern as they'd lose their house over it.

At 09:55 on August 07 2008, robbo2012 said:

Nice article. Clearly the government wanted a controlled leak to hear the wider reaction. I'm now convinved that removing stamp duty is not a good idea, but has anyone considered pros/cons of removing stamp duty for first home buyers? Property virgins would have an opportunity to obtain a home and help the wider ecomony(?). Could it halt the decline? Doubt it. Worth a try?

At 10:15 on August 07 2008, versimility said:

Stepped stamp duty as currently imposed is ridiculous. The government know this and the only thing they have done about it is to try and stop the "House sale: £249,999, sundry items: £10,000" practice that is the obvious solution. Presently many different types of house are priced at a pound under £250k, with a huge jump to £275 or £280k. This doesn't help people climb the property ladder.
By all means change the way stamp duty works: free to £125k, 1% on £125-250k, and so on. This would be a huge boon to sellers and buyers alike.

At 10:16 on August 07 2008, OldChild said:

Well argued as always, however I would take issue with a couple of points. Firstly, on the purchase of a house of £160k for example, stamp duty is still a very significant cost for most of us, and not "a minor expense". It is something that many of us would face a few months to save. And to fall back on the old advice of "saving harder" is a cop out. In practice, in a time of rising utility costs, rents and so on, few people can simply throw a switch and save more.

At 10:27 on